By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
WHY IS THE CHIEF JUSTICE RETIRING EARLY?
This week, reports surfaced that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Hon. Diosdado Peralta, is opting for an early retirement. Judges and Justices in the country mandatorily retire at the age of 70. Chief Justice Peralta hits mandatory retirement age on 27 March 2022, which is less than two (2) months before the 2022 National and Local Elections. If he opts to retire on his 70th birthday, it will result again to a controversial transition akin to the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno and the appointment of late Chief Justice Renato Corona by then outgoing President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The said controversy resulted to the case of De Castro, et al. vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002 (17 March 2010).
In De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, supra, petitioners sought to halt the coming up of shortlist by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for the replacement of then retiring Chief Justice Puno. The petitioners argued that under Section 15, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the President is prohibited from making appointments within two (2) months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger safety. Among other arguments, the petitioners averred that the judiciary is not included in the exception against midnight appointments because the courts can still function even without a permanent Chief Justice appointed.
The Supreme Court, however, issued a Decision ruling that the prohibition against midnight appointments does not extend to vacancies in the Supreme Court wherein Section 4 (1) in relation to Section 9 of Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that a “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof” from a “list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy”. The Court held that if the framers of the Constitution intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article XII to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so.
The was no reason cited for Chief Justice Peralta’s early retirement. Usually, magistrates retire due to health reasons such as the recently appointed Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla who was appointed by President Rodrigo Roa Duterte on 02 July 2020 and retired on 03 November 2020 staying only with the High Court for less than five (5) months. With Chief Justice Peralta stepping down a year before his mandatory retirement, the President will be able to appoint his replacement without any controversy. There are speculations that this is to accommodate Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe who will compulsorily retire on 14 May 2020. This will be some sort of a “revolving door policy”. Aside from the prestige and honor of holding the highest judicial post of the land, there is a big bump to the retirement benefits that a retiring Chief Justice will be receiving from that of an Associate Justice.
The problem, however, of accommodating and appointing Justice Bernabe as Chief Justice is that by the time she will compulsorily retire, there will already be a newly-elected President. Although relying from the ruling in De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, supra, there is no prohibition from the JBC from coming up of a shortlist and for President Duterte from appointing her replacement, it will not look good in the bar of public opinion. What if Justice Bernabe would also retire months before her compulsory retirement? With more reason, it will result in a quagmire of magistrates not finishing their tenure for personal and/or political accommodations. It will have an impact and effect to the integrity of the Supreme Court which Chief Justice Peralta and his immediate predecessor, Chief Justice Luis Bersamin, worked hard to restore.